Milestone Reached: "Petabyte" Read
My eyes just now, for the first time, encountered the word "petabytes." It was only, what, nine or ten years ago that I first heard the word "terabyte," that directly from Vance Opperman who was discussing the newly available TerraServer (long before Google Earth was around), and just 12 years since I purchased my own gigabyte hard drive personal computer.
I don't know why I haven't encountered the word before -- I knew it existed, but not by what name. Now that it has been presented me ("How Much Does the Internet Weigh?" Discover Magazine, June 2007), I have looked up "exabyte," "zettabyte," even "yobibyte," leaving me little to look forward to in the next few years.
So how much does the internet weigh? Averaging forty petabytes in traffic per day, and considering that only about half of the capacitors are charged (the 1's) each with about 40,000 electrons, a total day's traffic weighs around 0.2 millonths of an ounce.
Addendum:
Same issue, different article, Discover asks "Does Time Exist?" It goes on to ponder that even if time exists (once we are able to prove Wheeler-Dewitt to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, we likely will find time does not exist), there is no law forcing it to only move forward. Theoretically, time should be able to move backwards, into the past. Yet it doesn't. Or does it? I reference my June 2007 issue of Discover, and it is early May. Hmmm.
I don't know why I haven't encountered the word before -- I knew it existed, but not by what name. Now that it has been presented me ("How Much Does the Internet Weigh?" Discover Magazine, June 2007), I have looked up "exabyte," "zettabyte," even "yobibyte," leaving me little to look forward to in the next few years.
So how much does the internet weigh? Averaging forty petabytes in traffic per day, and considering that only about half of the capacitors are charged (the 1's) each with about 40,000 electrons, a total day's traffic weighs around 0.2 millonths of an ounce.
Addendum:
Same issue, different article, Discover asks "Does Time Exist?" It goes on to ponder that even if time exists (once we are able to prove Wheeler-Dewitt to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity, we likely will find time does not exist), there is no law forcing it to only move forward. Theoretically, time should be able to move backwards, into the past. Yet it doesn't. Or does it? I reference my June 2007 issue of Discover, and it is early May. Hmmm.
posted by Scribbler de Stebbing | 5/10/2007 06:52:00 PM
What, does no one think that whether time exists would make a good debate topic?
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
No? That's okay. My feelings aren't hurt. Not much, anyways. It's not like I'm going to cry. Just a little aching around my heart. It's nothing, really.
I'm sorry, but I figured that if time doesn't exist, I can take forever to actually respond to your post.
I think you have just proven, by your impatience, that time indeed exists.
It does APPEAR that time exists, but if you observe the subPlanckian realm, where matter becomes essentially waves, time muddles, as does space. All things exist concurrently.
As for your comment, it was transmitted, at it's most basic level, using bits charged by electrons, subPlanckian. So I don't know if you really did post it after my comment. Maybe you're psychic.
Post a Comment